Purpose—The aim of this guideline is to provide a synopsis of best clinical practices in the rehabilitative care of adults recovering from stroke. Methods—Writing group members were nominated by th...

Guidelines for Adult Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

In the United States, the incidence rate of new or recurrent stroke is approximately 795 000 per year, and stroke prevalence for individuals over the age of 20 years is estimated at 6.5 million.1 Mortality rates in the first 30 days after stroke have decreased because of advances in emergency medicine and acute stroke care. In addition, there is strong evidence that organized postacute, inpatient stroke care delivered within the first 4 weeks by an interdisciplinary healthcare team results in an absolute reduction in the number of deaths.2,3 Despite these positive achievements, stroke continues to represent the leading cause of long-term disability in Americans: An estimated 50 million stroke survivors worldwide currently cope with significant physical, cognitive, and emotional deficits, and 25% to 74% of these survivors require some assistance or are fully dependent on caregivers for activities of daily living (ADLs).4,5

Notwithstanding the substantial progress in acute stroke care over the past 15 years, the focus of stroke medical advances and healthcare resources has been on acute and subacute recovery phases, which has resulted in substantial health disparities in later phases of stroke care. Additionally, healthcare providers (HCPs) are often unaware of not only patients’ potential for improvement during more chronic recovery phases but also common issues that stroke survivors and their caregivers experience. Furthermore, even with evidence that documents neuroplasticity potential regardless of age and time after stroke,6 the mean lifetime cost of ischemic stroke (which accounts for 87% of all strokes) in the United States is an estimated $140 000 (for inpatient, rehabilitation, and follow-up costs), with 70% of first-year stroke costs attributed to acute inpatient hospital care1; therefore, fewer financial resources appear to be dedicated to providing optimal care during the later phases of stroke recovery.

Because there remains a …

Comprehensive Overview of Nursing and Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation Care of the Stroke Patient A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Objective. To investigate the test-retest reproducibility and smallest real difference (SRD) of 3 hand strength tests (grip, palmar pinch, and lateral pinch) and 2 dexterity tests (the Box and Block test [BBT] and the Nine Hole Peg test [NHPT]) in patients with stroke. Methods. The 5 tests were administered on 62 stroke patients in 2 sessions, 3 to 7 days apart. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine the level of reproducibility between measurements on 2 sessions. The SRD was used to determine the extent of measurement error because of chance variation in individual patients. SRD percentage (SRD relative to mean score) was used to compare test-retest reliability across tests. We analyzed the group as a whole, then in 2 subgroups (hand spasticity vs none). Results. The test-retest reproducibility of all 5 tests was high for all the patients, with ICCs ranging from 0.85 to 0.98. The SRDs for the more/less affected hand were: 2.9/4.7 kg for the grip test; 1.2/1.3 kg for the palmar...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1545968308331146

Test-Retest Reproducibility and Smallest Real Difference of 5 Hand Function Tests in Patients With Stroke

Objectives: To compare the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the motor subscale of the functional independence measure (FIM), the original 10 item Barthel index (BI), and the 5 item short form BI (BI-5) in inpatients with stroke receiving rehabilitation. Methods: 118 inpatients with stroke at a rehabilitation unit participated in the study. The patients were tested with the FIM motor subscale and original BI at admission to the rehabilitation ward and before discharge from the hospital. The distribution, internal consistency, concurrent validity, and responsiveness of each measure were examined. Results: The BI and FIM motor subscale showed acceptable distribution, high internal consistency (α coefficient ≥ 0.84), high concurrent validity (Spearman's correlation coefficient, rs ≥ 0.92, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ≥ 0.83), and high responsiveness (standardised response mean ≥ 1.2, p < 0.001). The BI-5 exhibited a notable floor effect at admission but this was not found at discharge. The BI-5 showed acceptable internal consistency at admission and discharge (α coefficient ≥ 0.71). The concurrent validity of the BI-5 was poor to fair at admission (rs = 0.74, ICC ≤ 0.55) but was good at discharge (rs ≥ 0.92, ICC ≥ 0.74). It is noted that the responsiveness of the BI-5 was as high as that of the BI and the FIM motor subscale. Conclusions: The results showed that the BI and FIM motor subscale had very acceptable and similar psychometric characteristics. The BI-5 appeared to have limited discriminative ability at admission, particularly for patients with severe disability; otherwise the BI-5 had very adequate psychometric properties. These results may provide information useful in the selection of activities of daily living measures for both clinicians and researchers.

Comparison of the Psychometric Characteristics of the Functional Independence Measure, 5 Item Barthel Index, and 10 Item Barthel Index in Patients with Stroke

Background
Establishing which upper limb outcome measures are most commonly used in stroke studies may help in improving consensus among scientists and clinicians.

/pdf/upper-limb-outcome-measures-used-in-stroke-rehabilitation-2th884vx30.pdf

Upper Limb Outcome Measures Used in Stroke Rehabilitation Studies: A Systematic Literature Review

Purpose. To examine the relative reliability and absolute reliability of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (PASS) in chronic stroke patients. Method. A total of 52 mild to moderate stroke patients, who had a stroke more than 6 months previously, participated in the study. Both balance measures were administered twice, seven days apart, to the patients. A relative reliability index (intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC2,1) was used to examine the level of agreement between test and retest. Absolute reliability indices, including the Bland and Altman method, the standard error of measurement (SEM), and the smallest real differences (SRD), were used to define the extent to which a balance score varies on test-retest measurements. Results. Test-retest agreements were high (ICC2,1: BBS = 0.98; PASS = 0.97), indicating excellent agreement from a relative perspective. The SEM of the BBS and PASS, representing the smallest change threshold that indicates a real improvement for a group of individuals, were 2.4 and 1.1, respectively. The SRD of the BBS and PASS were 6.7 and 3.2, respectively, exhibiting the smallest change threshold that indicates a real improvement for a single individual. Conclusions. The test-retest agreements of the BBS and PASS were high in mild to moderate chronic stroke patients. The thresholds of both measures to detect real change are acceptable in research and clinical settings.

The relative and absolute reliability of two balance performance measures in chronic stroke patients.

The aim of this study is to determine the test-retest reproducibility of the seven-item Short-Form Berg Balance Scale (SFBBS) and the five-item Short-Form Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (SFPASS) in individuals with chronic stroke. Fifty-two chronic stroke patients from two rehabilitation departments were included in the study. Both balance measures were administered twice 7 days apart. Test-retest reliability was analysed using the weighted κ (κ(w)) statistic for each item and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC(2,1)) for the total scores of both measures. Agreement was expressed as the SEM, minimal detectable change and limits of agreement by Bland and Altman analysis. Test-retest agreements were good to very good for SFBBS and SFPASS, with weighted κ values ranging from 0.75 to 0.89 and 0.66 to 0.84, respectively. The ICCs for the total SFBBS and SFPASS scores were excellent (ICC(2,1): SFBBS=0.99; SFPASS=0.93). The SEMs for both measures were less than 10% of the score range; the minimal detectable changes of the SFBBS and SFPASS were 2.83 and 2.16, respectively, indicating that both measures had a small and acceptable measurement error. Both measures showed good reproducibility. These results indicate that the SFBBS and SFPASS are useful for clinicians and researchers for the evaluation of balance performance and to determine whether the change score of an individual with stroke is real.

Test-retest reproducibility of two short-form balance measures used in individuals with stroke.

The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal scoring methods for measuring strength of the more-affected hand in patients with stroke by examining the effect of reducing measurement errors. Three hand-strength tests of grip, palmar pinch, and lateral pinch were administered at two sessions in 56 patients with stroke. Five scoring methods were used to present the strength scores. The smallest real difference was used to provide information on the measurement error. The smallest real difference percentage was used to compare the effect on minimizing the error. Using mean score of tests for nonspastic patients carried out at least twice was found to be advisable to minimize measurement errors in the grip, palmar pinch, and lateral pinch tests. However, the use of hand-strength tests for patients with spasticity is limited because of the relatively high measurement errors.

Optimal scoring methods of hand-strength tests in patients with stroke.

BACKGROUND
The Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist (MBI-C) has been developed to assess mild behavioral impairment (MBI). However, no study has validated the use of MBI-C using a promising translation method in Taiwan. Thus, consistency and discrepancy between informant-rated and self-rated scores have not been extensively researched.


OBJECTIVE
This study validated and compared the informant- and self-rated versions of the MBI-C among community-dwelling people in Taiwan.


METHOD
We recruited 202 pairs of individuals without dementia aged ≥50 years and their cohabitating informants. The participants completed the MBI-C (MBI-C-self), and the informants completed the MBI-C (MBI-C-informant) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) independently. Internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and convergent validity were examined.


RESULTS
Both MBI-C-self and MBI-C-informant exhibited satisfactory Cronbach's α values (0.92 and 0.88, respectively). The MBI-C-informant total scorewas correlated with the NPI-Q total score (r = 0.83, p < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability between the two versions, as represented by the inter-rater correlation coefficient, was 0.57 (p < 0.001). The prevalence of MBI based on the MBI-C-informant scores was 1.5% higher than that based on the MBI-C-self scores according to the suggested cut-off score of 8.5. The affective dysregulation domain score of MBI-C-informant was significantly lower than that of MBI-C-self.


CONCLUSION
MBI-C-informant exhibited both high reliability and validity. Discrepancies between MBI-C-informant and MBI-C-self related to the detection rates and affective dysregulation domain scores were noted. The level of consistency and discrepancy between these two versions provide implications for the use of MBI-C in clinical practice and future research.

Validation and Comparison of the Informant-Rated and Self-Rated Versions of the Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Hui-Mei Chen

Author Tools

Chat about Author